"Where there is revolution, there is always counter-revolution too."
Contributor: "YYC"
Louis Farrakhan outlined the whole concept in 2004, and it's on YouTube, but he's been targeted as an all-round rabid antisemite, among other things, so the video hasn't exactly had millions of visitors. Part 1 ... Part 2
Little seems to be known about the original author of the document, Oded Yinon besides this: Oded Yinon was formerly a senior Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry official. He is (1996) a journalist for the Jerusalem Post. But the translator, Israeli university professor and civil rights activist Israel Shahak, is written up in Wikipedia. He has been portrayed as a "Jewish antisemite", would you believe.
The essay is said to have first been published by The World Zionist Organization, and I couldn't find it there but I did find a short blurb about Oded Yinon (click on his name in the search list) and a now-defunct link to the essay. (CORRECTION: Click on the first item in the search list and a frame will open that contains the essay.)
Basically, the plan consists of splitting each of the middle eastern countries down the middle, not a difficult task, mostly accomplished by stirring up religious sects against one another - which the US has been quite successful at in Iraq, no doubt with lots of help from Mossad infiltrators.
Of course, the media talk as if these factions have always been at one another's throats, but that ain't necessarily so. From historian Juan Cole:
I see a lot of pundits and politicians saying that Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq have been fighting for a millennium. We need better history than that. The Shiite tribes of the south probably only converted to Shiism in the past 200 years. And, Sunni-Shiite riots per se were rare in 20th century Iraq. Sunnis and Shiites cooperated in the 1920 rebellion against the British. ... If you read the newspapers in the 1950s and 1960s, you don’t see anything about Sunni-Shiite riots ... The kind of sectarian fighting we’re seeing now in Iraq is new in its scale and ferocity, and it was the Americans who unleashed it.As diabolical as all this may seem regarding the Middle East, it should be noted that there is a movement toward breaking up the North American countries, as well. For some time I've talked about the global agenda for world governance that entails the splitting up of countries into smaller units, the purpose of which I think is to allow for international rules, laws and general policy to be established and administered from a central location, while "nation states" would be allowed sovereignty only over local matters, subject, of course, to those international rules.
Sort of an expanded version of our provinces headed by a federal government. Countries would be split into smaller "nation states", becoming virtual provinces dominated by an international government. It has been openly admitted by Stephen Harper, for instance, that our economy is not our own to govern; we are in a global economy.
This seems to be what the secession movement is all about. It might seem that the opposite is occurring because of the North American Union - the blending of Mexico, Canada and the US - suggesting the creation of a much larger unit. But the whole of North America would actually end up composed of 19 "nation states" (see secessionist map), each with local sovereignty, subject to the rules of the central world government.
So what is planned for the Middle East may have derived from Israeli thinking processes, but it fits the global plan for all of us. Notice how Canada and the United States are polarized politically, for example, even though there is very little difference in the overall objectives of the politicial parties. Notice the increase in the political clout of the religious right, offset by an increase in the visibility of atheists.
Israel may be getting a taste of its own medicine, now demonstrating some of the violent extremist views of which the Taliban and Islam in general have been accused.
I could talk about the manipulation of race as well as religion in the so-called Arab Spring, but I'll let Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya do that instead in this article wherein he also discusses the Oded Yinon plan, and from which I quote:
The name “Arab Spring” is a catch phrase concocted in distant offices in Washington, London, Paris, and Brussels by individuals and groups who, other than having some superficial knowledge, know very little about the Arabs. What is unfolding amongst the Arab peoples is naturally a mixed package. Insurgency is part of this package as is opportunism. Where there is revolution, there is always counter-revolution too.Market fluctuations are also excellent ways to weaken the middle classes and create polarization between the rich and the poor. I'm told there's an ex-Goldman-Sachs guy predicting just that as a result of a "major war" coming in 2012-2013. I don't know ... this seems to be coming from the more sensationalist websites that are constantly making imminent predictions that don't pan out, and besides, world wars have usually boosted economies, so it's hard to guess the purpose of this prophecy.
Not that I don't think we're on the verge of or already into WWIII; just that I think war is generally a means of solving economic problems for the attacking entities. The countries being attacked may suffer; their big failing in the first place is that they are not willing "players" in the global economy.
Is this prediction an attempt to create anti-war sentiment in America? That's the best face I can put on it. If North America suffers an Islamist false flag attack, that would really polarize the people!
0 comments:
Post a Comment